On January 27, 2020 we published a press release from Orthomolecular Medicine News Service regarding Vitamin C and its use in treating the Coronavirus. It soon went viral on Facebook, until Facebook labeled it as "Fake News." Facebook partners with a website called "Lead Stories" to discredit news stories they do not want becoming popular on Facebook. Health Impact News is a popular target of "Lead Stories." Since we published this news release in January, however, several hospitals in China have begun to conduct trials on intravenous Vitamin C therapy, so it is hardly "Fake News" as Facebook is claiming. In fact, Facebook is the one guilty of promoting "Fake News" by erroneously claiming there is no proof that Vitamin C can help combat the Coronavirus, when in fact clinical research trials are well underway in China with ample evidence that should be shared with the public, and not suppressed, simply because U.S. sources in bed with Big Pharma do not want the public to have this information. Orthomolecular Medicine News Service editor Andrew Saul has just published an updated report, and he notes: "The World Health Organization (WHO) has, literally, met with Google and Facebook and other media giants to stop the spread of what they declare to be wrong information. Physician-directed, hospital-based administration of intravenous vitamin C has been marginalized or discredited. Scientific debate over COVID-19 appears to not be allowed. Ironically, Facebook, blocking any significant users' sharing of the news of approved vitamin therapy research, is itself blocked in China by the Chinese government. As for the internet, yes, China has it. And yes, it is censored. But, significantly, the Chinese government has not blocked this real news on how intravenous vitamin C will save lives in the COVID-19 epidemic." Hence, the news about Vitamin C therapy helping with the Coronavirus outbreak is found mostly in Chinese language websites, endorsed by the Communist China Government's controlled media, but mostly banned in the English language social media platforms like Facebook, or censored from Google search results.
U.S. Marines and Navy Prepare to Execute Pandemic Plan As Questions Resurface About Coronavirus Origin
Responding to the coronavirus outbreak in China, where tens of thousands of citizens suspected of being infected with coronavirus (COVID-2019) have been detained and involuntarily taken to quarantine camps, on Feb. 1, 2020 an executive order was issued by the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), including the Joint Chiefs of Staff, directing the U.S. Northern Command to implement the DoD’s Global Campaign Plan for Pandemic and Infectious Diseases. On Feb. 12, 2020, orders were sent to the U.S. Marine Corps and Navy directing “geographic combatant commanders to execute their pandemic plans in response to the NCOV outbreak.” The U.S. Marine Corps directive told combat commanders to “review, update and validate existing disease containment plans and policies in order to implement procedures for response, isolation, quarantine, restriction of movement and community-based intervention” and to “become familiar with authority to declare a public health emergency, restrict movement, quarantine and isolate [and[ coordinate with Federal, State, local, and military treatment facilities and public health emergency officials…” The U.S. Navy directive stated, “DoD will continue to follow CDC guidance and comply with local public health authorities during this outbreak.” The scope of the mission of the U.S. Marines and U.S. Navy’s involvement in implementing the DoD’s Global Campaign Plan for Pandemic and Infectious Diseases in a civilian population is not clear as that Plan does not appear to have been publicly released by DoD. In general, however, the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act (PCA) prohibits the carte blanche use of military forces in civilian law enforcement in the U.S.
Each year, U.S. public health officials and their media partners renew the campaign to sell the entire country (including pregnant women, six-month-olds and fragile senior citizens) on the need for and benefits of flu vaccines. Ordinarily, to persuade the public that a given vaccine is beneficial, officials must show that it is effective—in other words, that it is able to “prevent outcomes of interest in the ‘real world.’” However, influenza vaccination’s infamous ineffectiveness makes this talking point a bit tricky. And when vaccination does not “significantly reduce medically attended influenza illness,” it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the vaccine has bombed. As public health experts are well aware, many factors can lessen influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE), including particular characteristics of vaccine recipients and the vaccinesthemselves. The scientific literature also points to serious wrinkles that underscore influenza vaccination’s inability to deliver meaningful benefits and its propensity to create new problems. For example, studies show that getting flu vaccines year after year reduces the level of vaccine protection available; flu-vaccinated individuals are also more susceptible to other strains of influenza and severe respiratory infections. Recent studies even suggest that childhood influenza vaccination can lead to larger epidemics and “an overall health loss.” A vaccine expert who recently admitted to knowing less about influenza today than a decade ago lamented, “It’s much more complicated than we thought.”
While most state legislatures are bowing to the Big Pharma lobby and proposing bills to remove exemptions to childhood vaccines and make them mandatory as a requirement for school attendance, a newly proposed bill in South Dakota moves in the opposite direction. House Bill 1235 has been introduced to prohibit schools from discriminating against any person for refusing to accept unwanted medical intervention, including vaccines. House Bill 1235 states that: "No child entering public or nonpublic school, or a public or nonpublic early childhood program in this state, may be required to receive any immunization or medical procedure for enrollment or entry. The Department of Health may recommend any immunization for school entry but may not require them. No school may use any coercive means to require immunization. It is a Class 1 misdemeanor for any educational institution, medical provider, or person to compel another to submit to immunization." The bill’s prime sponsor is District 21 state Rep. Lee Qualm, R-Platte.
Coronavirus: Who is Controlling the Information? Are Potential Government Actions More Dangerous than the Actual Virus?
Is the current coronavirus "pandemic" really threatening modern civilization as we know it, or is it being hyped to appear much worse than it really is? To answer this question, it depends on where you get your information, and how you interpret that information. Anyone who has lived in the U.S. much for the past 10 years or so has seen a familiar path that the fear surrounding coronavirus is taking. We saw the same fear being propagated this past summer (2019) over an alleged new "measles outbreak" that was used to justify massive government intervention, targeted primarily against those who were not vaccinated with the alleged fraudulent MMR vaccine. New York City went so far as to ban unvaccinated children from appearing in public places this past summer. And yet, no one died from the measles, and other infectious diseases that were NOT labeled as "outbreaks" or "epidemics," and yet infected a far higher percentages of people, such as whooping cough that DOES cause death, did not get the same media attention. Merck pharmaceuticals, the manufacturer of the MMR vaccine, saw sales soar as a result of the publicized "measles outbreak." Other diseases that were promoted by fear-based corporate media outlets in recent years include: Ebola, Zika, Bird Flu, Swine Flu, and many others. And yet, here we are today at the beginning of 2020 with no history of massive casualties in the U.S. due to these "outbreaks." Sharyl Attkisson is an Emmy Award winning independent news reporter who just recently recorded a podcast titled: Coronavirus: Who is controlling the information?
New Illinois Bill Would Require 6th Graders in Public, Private, and Religious Schools to Get the Gardasil HPV Vaccine
A new proposed bill would require some Illinois students to get the HPV vaccine. The bill was filed by Rep. Robyn Gabel, D-Evanston, on Feb. 11. HB 4870 amends the Communicable Disease Prevention Act. A synopsis for the bill states, "the Department of Public Health shall adopt a rule requiring students, upon entering the sixth grade of any public, private, or parochial school, to receive the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination and requiring confirmation that the student has completed the series of HPV vaccinations upon entering the ninth grade of any public, private, or parochial school. Provides that the Department shall adopt the rule in time to allow students to receive the vaccination before the start of the school year beginning in 2022. Effective January 1, 2021."
Maryland Bills Would Allow Doctors to Vaccinate Minors without Parental Consent and Against Parents’ Objections
Two new Maryland bills: HB87 sponsored by Delegate Marc Korman and companion bill SB135 sponsored by Senator Brian Feldman, would allow minor children to consent to vaccination without parental consent. HB87 and SB135 authorize a health care provider to administer vaccines to minor children 16 years and older after obtaining “consent” of the minor child, even when the parent of the minor child objects to the immunization. Parents are not required to be notified when their child has been vaccinated. HB87 has been scheduled for a hearing on Wednesday, February 12, at 1:00 p.m. in the Health & Government Operations Committee. SB135 has been scheduled for a hearing on Tuesday, February 18 at 1:00 p.m. in the Senate Finance Committee.
Former CDC Head and Merck’s Current Vaccine Division President Julie Gerberding Sells $9.1 Million in Merck Pharmaceutical Shares as Gardasil Vaccine Gets Bad Press
SEC filings reveal that Merck’s Vaccine Division President Julie Gerberding sold over half her Merck shares in January for $9.1 Million. That transaction followed a spate of bad news for Merck’s flagship Gardasil vaccine. Last month, Cancer Research UK announced an alarming 54% rise in cervical cancer among 24-29-year-olds, the first generation to receive the HPV jabs. The following day, the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine published a withering critique of Gardasil’s crooked clinical trials, “It is still uncertain whether human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination prevents cervical cancer as trials were not designed to detect this outcome.” As Gerberding knows, those trials revealed that Gardasil dramatically RAISES (by+44.6%) the risk of cervical cancer among women with a current infection or those previously exposed to HPV. Merck is now fighting existential fraud lawsuits on both the MMR and Gardasil vaccines, that threaten licensing for those key products. Fat rats are always the first to jump ship.
Dr. Lawrence Palevsky is a pediatrician trained at NYU School of Medicine, and did his residency at Mt. Sinai Hospital in New York. He recently spoke at a forum on vaccines in Connecticut, discussing the repeal of the religious exemption for childhood vaccines. Dr. Palevsky spent the first nine years of his career working in emergency rooms running a neonatal intensive care unit. Once he began his private practice, he began to hear: "... not dozens, not hundreds, but thousands of stories from parents who took a very healthy child into their doctor's office, and then found that their child lost much of their health. Whether it was their speech, whether it was seizures, whether it was death, whether it was asthma, allergies, eczema - whether it was autism, whether it was learning disabilities, whether it was inflammatory bowel disease, autoimmune diseases. And every one of those parents were told it had nothing to do with the vaccine." Today, he has viewed the outcomes of families who do not vaccinate their children for over 20 years. And he states: "They are the healthiest children I have ever seen."
Study: No Evidence the HPV Vaccine Prevents Cervical Cancer – 54% Increase in Cervical Cancer in British 25 to 29-Year-Olds
Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines hit the global marketplace in the mid-2000s. From the start, public health agencies enthusiastically promoted HPV vaccination as the “best way to protect [young people] against certain types of cancer later in life.” However, a blistering new study by British researchers—and new data showing that cervical cancer rates are surging in British 25- to 29-year-olds—raise numerous questions about officials’ inflated claims. The study’s results indicate, instead, that the jury is still out on whether HPV vaccination is effective. The question is far from academic because, prior to Britain’s introduction of HPV vaccination in 2008, cervical cancer rates had been trending sharply downward. In fact, between the late 1980s and mid-2000s, cervical cancer rates halved. Now, Britain’s leading cancer research charity (Cancer Research UK) reports a steep 54% rise in cervical cancer in one of the very age groups that first received the vaccine.